Alex123 wrote:Ron made a good point that climatologists have trouble making accurate predictions more than 4 days in advance.

This shows you don't understand the difference between climate and weather..

Or you didn't understand the point. If we have trouble to predict how warm/cold it will be 4 days or more in advance, then what can we say about 10-100 years?!

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Alex123 wrote:Ron made a good point that climatologists have trouble making accurate predictions more than 4 days in advance.

This shows you don't understand the difference between climate and weather..

Or you didn't understand the point. If we have trouble to predict how warm/cold it will be 4 days or more in advance, then what can we say about 10-100 years?!

That's still comparing weather and climate, Alex, which is fallacious in terms of understanding climate science. But this was already mentioned, and you have failed to learn the information. So, you either remain unwilling to learn, or unable.

I'm utterly flummoxed.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

daverupa wrote:That's still comparing weather and climate, Alex, which is fallacious in terms of understanding climate science.

I am not comparing weather to climate. Of course there is a big difference. But if we can't accurately predict one day, how can we accurately predict daily temperatures over whole period (some say 30 years) in order to say what temperatures and over what range will be?

How accurately can we predict the sun's activity in near or further future? It affects the climate.

Kim,

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge. Click here to see this peer reviewed research paper.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

daverupa wrote:There can be no convincing evidence given to one who is suspicious of the standards of evidence being used. Those who disagree with the scientific consensus must argue against either the science itself, or the motives for the consensus. Therefore, this discussion might usefully continue (elsewhere) as a general foray into epistemology with a focus on what it means to have "good evidence" for something.

You're trying to draw lines in the sand while the tides coming in. Science just means knowledge, so talking about science is not a "foray" into epistemology. It is empistemology! "Suspicion"/scepticism (not to be confused with absolute dout) is a necessary condition for good science. Have you ever taken a course in statistics, resarch methods, philosophy of science, the history of science? I have. I'm not just blowing smoke. That's why it's so easy for me to spot bad science (and my masters degree is a masters of science). Your "point" amounts to no more than an inappropriate use of an argumentum ad populum unlike my appropriate use of an argumentum ad verecundiam.

If scientific consensus and peer review were "the gold standard of science" ( ) we'd still be believing with most scientiists/epistemologists in the 1600s that the earth is motionless. Galileo disproved Aristotle's physics--which held that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones, in direct proportion to weight--with his famous Tower of Pisa experiments, which flew in the face of the then accepted "scientifc consensus."

daverupa wrote:Otherwise, I find that conspiracy theories render the individual who holds them incapable of equanimous conversation. It's definitely the third and worst field to hope seed will take root within.

How on Eath can one "disagree with data"? Do you mean "not trust the data"? Data is just data. If it is gathered with integrity, it must simply be taken as a fact. The interpretation of data is another thing. Interpretations can be tricky, requiring clever minds and vigorous debate amongst trained prosfessionals, not amateurs like us.

Data is never just data. The fact that we want it to begin with adds one layer of interpreatation, and "gathering it with integrity" is itself another layer of interpretation. Nothing by good science/epistemological methods should be taken as fact. Assuming there's a clear distinction between "trained professionals" and "amateurs" is another layer of interpretation.

Ever heard of the Observer Effect, The Copenhagen Interpreation, The Uncertainty Principle? Ever taken a college course in statistics, research methods, philosophy of science, history of science, etc...?

Whether or not you were offended by Muller’s attempt to calm the climate change debate, I’d like to focus instead on Powell’s deeper message. He claims that scientists have a responsibility to trust each other. As he says in the video, “If every scientist said, ‘I’m not going to believe what anybody else did until I do it myself,’ scientists would be at least a century behind where we are right now. That is, if something is done by a reliable lab, passes peer review, you should at least tentatively accept it until somebody shows you some reason why it’s wrong.”

This is a bold statement, and it made me think. As scientists, skepticism is one of our main responsibilities, maybe even our first priority, because we have implicitly agreed to collect knowledge from the physical world rather than myth or superstition. We must be skeptical of claims, unless they are supported by empirical evidence. So how did we end up with a “scientists vs. skeptics” debate, where scientists are compelled to say “don’t worry, just trust me”?Source: The Berkeley Science Review

Trust like this makes critical thinking unnecessary and the quote shows how Powell thinks the corrupt peer review process trumps replicablity as a principle of sound scientific method. I'm guessing he never took a philosophy of science course.

The trust here comes after the peer-reviewed process for accepting empirical evidence, and can always be overturned by new evidence. It's not any different than "trusting" a senior monk who is well-respected in the monastic community until you have the time / capability to verify his teachings through your own experience.

Apples and oranges. In the latter case you at least approximate a sufficent sample, but not in the former. Plus, it ignores the more important scientific/epistemological principles that trust/faith is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for good science. The Buddha himself encouraged critical, sceptical examination of his very own self and teachings. And I'm not alluding to the Kalama Sutta, which is merely supplemental to the even bolder Vimamsaka Sutta (MN 47).

daverupa wrote: That's still comparing weather and climate, Alex, which is fallacious in terms of understanding climate science. But this was already mentioned, and you have failed to learn the information. So, you either remain unwilling to learn, or unable.

I'm utterly flummoxed.

Are you assuming there's not a necessary connection between climate and weather?

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

I haven't really drawn a line in the sand myself but my geology professor firmly believes that all the worry about CO2 is madness. In class today he started talking about the issue and I jotted down a couple of things he said. These are all rough paraphrases:

Water vapor is actually our most prevalent greenhouse gas and accounts for about 98% of the atmosphere's heat holding capacity.

The reason that CO2 has been targeted by politicians is because water vapor ain't going anywhere anytime soon.

Of the remaining 2%, CO2 represents about half, i.e. CO2 is only responsible for 1% at most of our atmosphere's heat retention capabilities.

Mankind has been around for the lowest CO2 levels in geologic history.

360-260 million years during the paleozoic era CO2 represented about 6% of the earth's atmosphere and this period was a time of glaciation, not melting or warming.

Burning of fossil fuels has not yet doubled atmospheric CO2 since the start of the industrial evolution.

Given that we aren't even that CO2 isn't even that close to being 1% of the atmosphere and given that it was 6% CO2 during a time of glaciation it seems silly to think that the CO2 that humans are putting back into the atmosphere is going to put us on a runaway course of global warming that's going to destroy civilization and the environment.

Just to reiterate, I myself don't take a position on this matter. I'm all down for solar power regardless but I'm not a scientist, I haven't looked at or understood the totality of the geologic or climate records. So I really don't know. Just wondering what the global warming affirmers have to say about these sorts of things.

"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

Conclusions. A review of research on past temperatures and variations led us to the following conclusions: 1. Climate is in continual flux: the average annual temperature is usually either rising or falling and the temperature is never static for a long period of time.

3. Climate changes must be judged against the natural climatic variability that occurs on a comparable time scale. The Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, and similar events are part of this natural variability. These events correspond to global changes of 1 - 2 degrees C.

4. Global temperatures appear to be rising, irrespective of any human influence, as Earth continues to emerge from the Little Ice Age. If the temperature increase during the past 130 years reflects recovery from the Little Ice Age, it is not unreasonable to expect the temperature to rise another 2 to 2.5 degrees Celsius to a level comparable to that of the Medieval Warm Period about 800 years ago. The Holocene Epoch, as a whole, has been a remarkably stable period with few extremes of either rising or falling temperatures, as were common during Pleistocene glacial and interglacial periods. Nevertheless, the Holocene has been, and still is, a time of fluctuating climate.

5. Climatic changes measured during the last 100 years are not unique or even unusual when compared with the frequency, rate, and magnitude of changes that have taken place since the beginning of the Holocene Epoch. Recent fluctuations in temperature, both upward and downward, are well within the limits observed in nature prior to human influence.

danieLion wrote:Ever heard of the Observer Effect, The Copenhagen Interpreation, The Uncertainty Principle? Ever taken a college course in statistics, research methods, philosophy of science, history of science, etc...?

I have. Am I a trained professional or an amateur?

Thank you for the condescending assumptions (I am familiar with all of these topics). I was referring to a trained professional in the topic being discussed (climate). I am an engineer, but also willing to admit that I am an amateur in regard to climate. You mentioned nothing of being fully engaged in studying climate, so I would have to assume you are also an amateur on the topic. If you have specific, verifiable evidence that some data or interpretation are not trustworthy, then by all means present it.

Buckwheat wrote:The article you cite is written by the North Dakota Geological Survey, funded by tax dollars paid by the fossil fuel industry.

Are you trying to imply that since the article was written by such and such, then it has to be wrong merely through that?

What about actual arguments, not the people who said it?

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Buckwheat wrote:The article you cite is written by the North Dakota Geological Survey, funded by tax dollars paid by the fossil fuel industry.

Are you trying to imply that since the article was written by such and such, then it has to be wrong merely through that?

What about actual arguments, not the people who said it?

No, I am just pointing out that we all need to pay attention to who are sources are. Just because somebody cites a source does not make it right or wrong. I don't have time to research this document further. I would rather spend time meditating so that I can develop the will power to stop clicking on this stupid thread. Personally, I am highly skeptical of anything published by the North Dakota gov't, as they are in the process of whoring themselves out to fossil fuel companies.

Buckwheat wrote:No, I am just pointing out that we all need to pay attention to who are sources are.

We need to pay attention to arguments. Not simply who said them.

Buckwheat wrote:Just because somebody cites a source does not make it right or wrong.

Right. It is the arguments that matter.

Buckwheat wrote: Personally, I am highly skeptical of anything published by the North Dakota gov't, as they are in the process of whoring themselves out to fossil fuel companies.

Personally, I am skeptical of flawed arguments and using very limited data that shows what you want it to show.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

I just read something very interesting, that is of relevance to this debate:

Henrik Svensmark, of the National Space Institute in Copenhagen, has proposed that the strength of a solar cycle affects the Earth's climate. "This would not be surprising, given that much of our energy comes from the sun," Dr Soria says.It is well known that cosmic rays, originating from the Milky Way and beyond, are constantly bombarding the solar system. When the rays enter the Earth's upper atmosphere, they may act as seeds for cloud droplets, according to the Danish model.The sun's magnetic field acts as a partial shield against cosmic rays, Dr Soria says. "The stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more cosmic rays are deflected away from the Earth. As a result, a more active sun – with a stronger magnetic field – means fewer cosmic rays would reach the Earth's atmosphere. Hence fewer clouds and so a warmer Earth; a weaker sun has the opposite effect."Supporters of this model emphasise that the two coldest periods in Earth's recent history – namely the 17th and early 19th centuries – coincided with the two weakest phases of solar activity, known respectively as the Maunder and Dalton minima."Cycle 24 is shaping up to be almost as weak as the Dalton minimum, after a series of several strong cycles in the late 20th century, known as the Grand Solar Maximum," Dr Soria notes."If Dr Svensmark's model is correct, this weak cycle will lead to a decrease in global temperatures over the next decade. In fact, the plateau in global temperatures over the last 16 years may already be an early effect of a weaker sun."

Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity." (SN 22.97)

Manas,I hope this is accurate, but it certainly requires further inquiry before adopting it as fact. Up to this point, I never heard an actual prediction of future solar output, so I assumed the probability of solar output offsetting AGW to be equal to the probability of solar output compounding AGW. It would be nice to see more certainty of it offsetting AGW. The magnitude of the effect would still have to be studied, as current predictions for AGW are a change in temperatures several times larger than the variation over the last several hundred years (including the midievel warm period and the little ice age).

Buckwheat wrote:Manas,I hope this is accurate, but it certainly requires further inquiry before adopting it as fact. Up to this point, I never heard an actual prediction of future solar output, so I assumed the probability of solar output offsetting AGW to be equal to the probability of solar output compounding AGW. It would be nice to see more certainty of it offsetting AGW. The magnitude of the effect would still have to be studied, as current predictions for AGW are a change in temperatures several times larger than the variation over the last several hundred years (including the midievel warm period and the little ice age).

Hi, Buckwheat and all,The effect is tiny compared to the impact of the CO2 we are pumping into the system.Polarbuddha, your geology professor is way out of line with the science he is supposed to be teaching. All of his points, I think, are answered here - http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php - and I would encourage you to read that page and the references it points to ... and then present it to your prof to see what he says. If he says it's nonsense, he's in line for a Nobel or its opposite, because there is no middle ground for a scientist: you either trust the science or you're not a scientist. Manas, I think that URL addresses most of your concerns, too.